Google lovers, Chrome adapters- Google Chrome`s meticulous caring privacy policy

[kartal]

I am trying to warn people about Google`s shady privacy practices and data mining here as frequently as possible. I hope that the highlights below could make open your eyes little more.


"Be sure to read Chrome's fine print"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2.html

here is the slashdot discussion page about privacy policy aspect of Chrome
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/0247205&from=rss

You can also listen this interview with Daniel J. Solove(from it Conversations) about what your privacy is and why it should be imporant.
"Understanding Privacy"
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3805.html

[allen]

...reading the links in Chrome, take note google

[Ehtyar]

I am trying to warn people about Google`s shady privacy practices and data mining here as frequently as possible.

Good man, keep it up.

Ehtyar.

[Mark0]

Parts of the EULA were simply lifted from other services - were supposedly they made some sense.
It's now corrected:

TapTheHive - This Post Not Made In Chrome; Google's EULA Sucks Is Fixed

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

12. Software updates ...

Bye!

[f0dder]

Mark0: that's better, but what does it say about google's rights to datamine?

[Mark0]

This is all I found:

Matt Cutts: Preventing paranoia: when does Google Chrome talk to Google.com?

For better or worse, my blog is popular with the Google conspiracy-theorist demographic. I knew that as soon as Google Chrome launched, some readers would ask tough questions about privacy and how/when Google Chrome communicates with google.com.

So I decided to tackle this issue head-on. I talked to the Chrome team to find out if there’s anything to worry about. The short answer is no. For the long answer, read on.

[f0dder]

From that blog post, things sounds quite reasonable.

If there aren't other "privacy issues" than that, and there aren't going to be, then imho there's nothing to fuzz about. And since it's opensores, people can keep watch... but oh yeah, <tinfoilhat>google could do different builds than from the publicly available source</tinfoilhat>

[Mark0]

I think that they know that someone eventually will be able to sniff all the traffic Chrome make, interpret / decrypt it, and blog out for all the Digg / Reddit population to see, if there's something even remotely strange!

[fenixproductions]

We know about Chrome now but what about GoogleUpdate.exe? This guy is not open sourced.
Google is against me because I cannot find an info what data this app sends

This makes me wonder:
HKCU\Software\Google\Update\UsageStats\

[Ehtyar]

We know about Chrome now but what about GoogleUpdate.exe? This guy is not open sourced.
Google is against me because I cannot find an info what data this app sends

This makes me wonder:
HKCU\Software\Google\Update\UsageStats\

Couldn't have said it better myself. People forget that this thing is scheduled to run when idle.

Ehtyar.

[alivingspirit]

since it's opensores, people can keep watch...

Ouch!

[40hz]

Some info on changes promised for the Chrome EULA over at ArsTechnica

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

Google's Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, now tells Ars Technica that the company tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, "in order to keep things simple for our users." Ward admits that sometimes "this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product" and says that Google is "working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."

It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open license. Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.

So, there you have it: a tempest in a (chrome) teapot. Not that it's the only one;

[tomos]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

...
It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open license. Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.
....

I find that a little ironic - they're saying they cant enforce how we use the browser
The problem here is that we dont know how they are going to use this browser -
from that point of view (i.e. how the EULA limits/effects their actions) it's important

[apologies I havent read the article but had to respond to that quote]

edit/ okay not so bad as it seemed, the excerpt I kept is from the ArsTechnica writer (initially I thought it from google spokesperson), but it is important to look at it from that point of view - we want the eula to limit what google can do ...

[Ehtyar]

Not only that, but how many people are going to be running around downloading unofficial builds?

Ehtyar.

[Darwin]

From that blog post, things sounds quite reasonable.

If there aren't other "privacy issues" than that, and there aren't going to be, then imho there's nothing to fuzz about. And since it's opensores, people can keep watch... but oh yeah, <tinfoilhat>google could do different builds than from the publicly available source</tinfoilhat>

Very true. The tinfoil hat wearing side of me is adopting a wait and see approach - just being prudent. I just want to give Google time to clean up the EULA and smarter people than me time to determine what is, or what is not, being done with the data that Google may or may not be mining...

[kartal]

From that blog post, things sounds quite reasonable.

If there aren't other "privacy issues" than that, and there aren't going to be, then imho there's nothing to fuzz about. And since it's opensores, people can keep watch... but oh yeah, <tinfoilhat>google could do different builds than from the publicly available source</tinfoilhat>

Very true. The tinfoil hat wearing side of me is adopting a wait and see approach - just being prudent. I just want to give Google time to clean up the EULA and smarter people than me time to determine what is, or what is not, being done with the data that Google may or may not be mining...

Were you able to decide on what to do with Google? Now that the time of the benefit of doubt is over regarding the latest guardian releases.

[Darwin]

From that blog post, things sounds quite reasonable.

If there aren't other "privacy issues" than that, and there aren't going to be, then imho there's nothing to fuzz about. And since it's opensores, people can keep watch... but oh yeah, <tinfoilhat>google could do different builds than from the publicly available source</tinfoilhat>

Very true. The tinfoil hat wearing side of me is adopting a wait and see approach - just being prudent. I just want to give Google time to clean up the EULA and smarter people than me time to determine what is, or what is not, being done with the data that Google may or may not be mining...

Were you able to decide on what to do with Google? Now that the time of the benefit of doubt is over regarding the latest guardian releases.

Chrome hasn't been anywhere near my computers since 2008. I've been happy with IE8,9,10, and now 11 long ago lost interest in keeping up with developments in other browsers. Now, the wisdom of doing this is probably open for debate, but I don't do much more than read forums about software and wristwatches and have an up to date AV, so figure that I'm as safe as I can be.

[TaoPhoenix]

Sorry this is slightly tangential, but it's in the "privacy" arena.

"Element Hiding Helper for Adblock" is interesting. Because sometimes the developers keep "simple names" to their functions, aka good "internal coding", but then it's also in our favor that it's not obfuscated.

So I just found "http://bits.wikimedia.org/geoiplookup" on Wikipedia.

That's right... and surely it's symbolic of tons of other less "reputable" pages. So there's cold hard proof cousin to those "Hi! Hot Dates are in Your_Area"! Ads.

In a way that it's on Wikipedia, it's the sad symbol that "Free" frequently means "priced with non-cash intangibles".

[4wd]

So I just found "http://bits.wikimedia.org/geoiplookup" on Wikipedia.

Impressive, it's within 400m of where I am - most usually only get to the ISP's interconnect which is ~30km away.

Switching to 3G puts me in the middle of Melbourne, ~50km away.

I wonder what info is being requested/sent that whoever WikiMedia are using, (possibly MaxMind), is able to narrow it down to the suburb rather than the ISP's presence.